4 ms·

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ... This brings t

by aazaa 6y ago

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ... This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance. Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security. Following the Mission Protocol seems like a thinly-disguised attempt to get workers to subject themselves to someone else's agenda. I mean, isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means? Every mission is political in one way or another.

iongoatb 6y ago
This protocol is meant for non-government agencies, i.e. tech companies. Don't obfuscate the intended purpose of this protocol. There are well-defined, existing whistleblower protocols in government for situations that Snowden encountered.
- Pils 6y ago
  Did you mean to also exclude tech companies that work with the government (i.e. Palantir, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.)? > Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (informally Booz Allen) is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American management and information technology consulting firm, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in Greater Washington, D.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton
  - iongoatb 6y ago
    Gee, thanks for explaining what government contracting is. I wasn't aware. /s Contractors are also protected under existing whistleblower laws. There are clearly codified protocols for reporting and handling instances of governmental abuse. Any contractor that is dealing with sensitive information is working with either a Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearance. These projects and clearances are something you are specifically hired for, or voluntarily agree to participate in. https://www.cncsoig.gov/contractor-whistleblower-protection-0 https://www.cncsoig.gov/contractor-whistleblower-protection-... Again, stop obfuscating. You're grasping at straws.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      Welcome to HN! Gentle nudge to take a look at the HN etiquette guide. Your comment sticks out in a very negative way, and hurts the culture we want to foster.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
Snowden found that these agencies were violating their mission, which is defined by the Constitution.
treyhuffine 6y ago
The way I read it, I don't think the Mission Protocol is about accomplishing the mission at all costs, even if it means sacrificing our morals or doing anything illegal. It's very difficult to create meaningful and impactful change to improve society, and this advocates being laser-focused to give your mission the best chance be successful. If all (good) missions are given their full attention, they all have a higher chance of success instead of everyone trying to trying to do everything, and then not doing any mission well enough to be successful. It is advocating for people to choose a company with a mission they believe in because they think it can make a positive contribution to society. For example, if you care about having a world-wide open financial system but take a job at Tesla, according to the Mission Protocol you would be doing a disservice to bringing clean energy to the world if you also asked Tesla to put effort into contributing to an open financial system.
not_a_moth 6y ago
Really cheapening Snowden here if you think he wasn't going to sacrifice his life to reveal these practices if a little mission protocol document had been there.
noxer 6y ago
Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission. >...isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means? No, It doesn't discourage anyone from questioning the groups action at all. It should stop companies from having to decorate their office according to the current pride month to make a political statement that is completely irrelevant to its mission.
- herbstein 6y ago
  > Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission. Whether e.g. my colleagues that happen to be minorities feel comfortable in the working environment is super important for me as an employee, and should be important to the company too. Even as a purely profit-driven incentive, but hopefully also because empathy is a thing that exists. My colleagues without citizenship, gender-minorities, and ethnic minorities in general are, for example impacted disproportionately by the policies of the current administration. If one of these colleagues talks about "politics" that aren't directly relevant to the mission, but impact them deeply as humans and emotional beings, they shouldn't be shut down. For them, it might instill a degree of confidence in the organization if the company, instead of ignoring their plight, chose to actively support them.
  - noxer 6y ago
    You exactly misunderstood it. Personal these topics may be relevant but for the groups mission they are not. It doesn't matter if the topic is relevant for a majority or minority at all. Even if the topic would be of interest for all people, if its not relevant to the mission it simply inst relevant in the scope of working and should not be handled at work. If you are mistreated by others AT WORK for whatever reason including political reasons then you have (should have) a way to report that. The Mission Protocol isn't about looking away from wrongdoings its about focusing on the mission and avoiding mission non-critical stuff. Your views on whatever outside of that scope can be emotionally affected by current events but that can not and should not be in the way of the companies mission.

by aazaa 6y ago

iongoatb 6y ago

This protocol is meant for non-government agencies, i.e. tech companies. Don't obfuscate the intended purpose of this protocol. There are well-defined, existing whistleblower protocols in government for situations that Snowden encountered.

Pils 6y ago
Did you mean to also exclude tech companies that work with the government (i.e. Palantir, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.)? > Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (informally Booz Allen) is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American management and information technology consulting firm, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in Greater Washington, D.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton
- iongoatb 6y ago
  Gee, thanks for explaining what government contracting is. I wasn't aware. /s Contractors are also protected under existing whistleblower laws. There are clearly codified protocols for reporting and handling instances of governmental abuse. Any contractor that is dealing with sensitive information is working with either a Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearance. These projects and clearances are something you are specifically hired for, or voluntarily agree to participate in. https://www.cncsoig.gov/contractor-whistleblower-protection-0 https://www.cncsoig.gov/contractor-whistleblower-protection-... Again, stop obfuscating. You're grasping at straws.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Welcome to HN! Gentle nudge to take a look at the HN etiquette guide. Your comment sticks out in a very negative way, and hurts the culture we want to foster.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

Snowden found that these agencies were violating their mission, which is defined by the Constitution.

treyhuffine 6y ago

The way I read it, I don't think the Mission Protocol is about accomplishing the mission at all costs, even if it means sacrificing our morals or doing anything illegal. It's very difficult to create meaningful and impactful change to improve society, and this advocates being laser-focused to give your mission the best chance be successful. If all (good) missions are given their full attention, they all have a higher chance of success instead of everyone trying to trying to do everything, and then not doing any mission well enough to be successful. It is advocating for people to choose a company with a mission they believe in because they think it can make a positive contribution to society. For example, if you care about having a world-wide open financial system but take a job at Tesla, according to the Mission Protocol you would be doing a disservice to bringing clean energy to the world if you also asked Tesla to put effort into contributing to an open financial system.

not_a_moth 6y ago

Really cheapening Snowden here if you think he wasn't going to sacrifice his life to reveal these practices if a little mission protocol document had been there.

noxer 6y ago

Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission. >...isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means? No, It doesn't discourage anyone from questioning the groups action at all. It should stop companies from having to decorate their office according to the current pride month to make a political statement that is completely irrelevant to its mission.

herbstein 6y ago
> Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission. Whether e.g. my colleagues that happen to be minorities feel comfortable in the working environment is super important for me as an employee, and should be important to the company too. Even as a purely profit-driven incentive, but hopefully also because empathy is a thing that exists. My colleagues without citizenship, gender-minorities, and ethnic minorities in general are, for example impacted disproportionately by the policies of the current administration. If one of these colleagues talks about "politics" that aren't directly relevant to the mission, but impact them deeply as humans and emotional beings, they shouldn't be shut down. For them, it might instill a degree of confidence in the organization if the company, instead of ignoring their plight, chose to actively support them.
- noxer 6y ago
  You exactly misunderstood it. Personal these topics may be relevant but for the groups mission they are not. It doesn't matter if the topic is relevant for a majority or minority at all. Even if the topic would be of interest for all people, if its not relevant to the mission it simply inst relevant in the scope of working and should not be handled at work. If you are mistreated by others AT WORK for whatever reason including political reasons then you have (should have) a way to report that. The Mission Protocol isn't about looking away from wrongdoings its about focusing on the mission and avoiding mission non-critical stuff. Your views on whatever outside of that scope can be emotionally affected by current events but that can not and should not be in the way of the companies mission.